I've already posted on the subsequent conclusions of the "independent economists" as it relates to the Green Plan. I'm sure Liberal and NDP staffers can read the newspaper, so why in the hell aren't they countering with the following?:
Acclaimed economist (according to John Baird and Gary Lunn) Mark Jaccard on the Green Plan:
"Basically, the intensity cap and trade program for large final emitters looks like it has far too many loopholes [so-called flexibility provisions] to cause much in the way of GHG [greenhouse gas] reductions in Canada," Mark Jaccard, a professor at B.C.'s Simon Fraser University's school of resource and environmental management, said in an e-mail.
"It sounds tough to talk about 6% emissions-intensity reductions per year, and then 2% per year, but how much of that will actually be 'real emissions reductions?' My preliminary sense is 'not a lot.' "
Uber economist Don Drummond (according to John Baird and Gary Lunn):
Don Drummond, chief economist at the TD Bank Financial group, said he was puzzled by the government's assertions that its plan could cost the economy up to $9-billion in its worst year.
"That is just an extremely simplistic calculation," said Drummond. "I don't think anybody could do [those calculations], because there are not enough details."
Everytime Ben and Jerry cite these economists, the follow-up question should reveal the double-edged sword. You can carve the Kyoto doom and gloom conclusions to pieces, given the intellectually dishonest parameters, but let's not split hairs. Just say, okay, they agree that gas prices will go up, but they also conclude that your Green Plan is crap. Why do we let Lunn spew with no counter? It's maddening.